Here is an English-language version of a fascinating interview that Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US, Dani Ayalon gave recently to ben Kaspit of Ma’Ariv. (Thanks to the US government’s taxpayer-funded Open Source Center for the translating.)
Ayalon makes many intriguing points here, some of which I have bolded for your reading ease. However, I’m in a rush and don’t have to comment more right now, except to note that he confirms what I have been writing all along, namely that the strengthening of the Democrats in the recent election is not necessarily seen by Israeli policymakers as bad for them:
- The Americans’ support for us is not partisan. Nancy Pelosi, Tom Lantos, Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Bayden, Steny Hoyer — all those prominent Democrats — are huge friends of Israel…
And this, about what he was hearing from Democrats (and others) during the 33-day war:
- when the war in Lebanon started, one of the most liberal Democrats told me: “Go for Nasrallah’s head.” The Neo-Cons are not the only ones who understand terror these days. The world is changing. Everybody knows now what Israel is going through. They understand the consequences of terror. From the US point of view, Israel has turned into something like a laboratory, a model that proves that terror can be beaten, that there are ways of dealing with suicide terrorists. Every day that goes by with no suicide terrorist blowing up in Tel Aviv helps the Americans prove to the Europeans that they must not blink, that they must not make compromises with terror…
It seems to me, as a European, that Democrat majority in Congress does not necessarily equal unlimited support for right-wing policies in Israel. We have to wait and see. It may be that it is true, but pre-election promises are not the same as post-election action. It may be that the action is less than the promised support for Israel.
That may be optimistic , Alastair. Democrats may yet prove to be more “neo” than the neo-cons.
After all there is a neo-liberal streak in the Democrats that finds great compatibility with the expansionist dreams of Israeli statehood. Witness the kid-glove treatment that Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger showed toward Ehud Barak, an Israeli prime minister who expanded control over more occupied Palestinian territories than Bibi Netanyahu.
The potential for real change under the incoming Democratic Congress looked greater when Pelosi threw her support to Rep. Jack Murtha for Majority leadership. Murtha could have shaken things up, but Steny Hoyer? The strange thing to see at this point is a hawkish Howard Dean and a future Chair of Appropriations (Rangel) favoring a new American draft.
The point Helena makes is the important one. What needs to be debunked is this Orwellian idea pedalled by Israeli apparatchik that military dominance equals national security, war equals peace. Hasn’t America’s misadventure in Iraq proven this false!
“…every day that goes by with no suicide terrorist blowing up in Tel Aviv…” What nonsense!
Israel’s refusal to treat Palestinian Muslims and Christians as equal citizens, at the same time we witness the illegal expansion of Israeli territorial control over more Palestinian land, is somehow supposed to discourage suicide terrorists in the future. Such baloney!
It is time for every intelligent human being to say enough is enough, and concentrate the focus of our political opposition on flawed American/Israeli policies.
Unfortunately, Alastair, the right-wing Israeli lobby has bought both the Republicans AND the Democrats, so your reasoning, which is and should be reasonable, doesn’t hold. AIPAC has just as much control over the incoming Democrats, all else being equal.
What I’m hoping for is that a combination of three new factors may put paid to AIPAC:
— the Walt/Meersheimer report opened the issue up for discussion, so more Americans are knowledgeable about Israeli incursions into US foreign policy.
— George Soros and others are putting together a new American Jewish “peace” lobby to counteract AIPAC.
— Democrat Congresswoman Betsy McCollum balked, very publicly, at AIPAC’s rough tactics with her this year when she failed to support a punitive House bill on Palestine.
So I’m thinking there might be a lot of other Dems who are heartily sick of bending to AIPAC’s blackmail and there might be a rush to the exits sometime over the next year.
(That’s me, ever the optimist!)
Brenda,
You are a quick study, and optimist to boot! Go girl!
Brenda, Alistair, sd:
The theatrics and shenanigans aside, for practical purposes, after the 1956 war, from a foreign policy pespective, the US = Israel. Again, the shows aside, can you quote one US action that has practically curbed Israeli hegemony and dominance, or even softened its edge? And as it pertains to foreign policy, especially regarding the Mid East and Palestine/Israel, the Democrats are polite, deceitful Republicans.
Cheers.
Helena,
In another side this wise Israeli writer David Grossman when he spoke at a rally in memory of the late Rabin. Its worth reading
David Grossman lost his son Uri who was killed on active duty in Lebanon war.
“The highlight of the Rabin Memorial ceremony in Tel Aviv on 4 November last was, by common consent, David Grossman’s speech directed rhetorically to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.”
He said
The always-excellent Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun called the American Congress a pack of “trained, barking seals” when they unhesitatingly — under the lash of the AIPAC lobby — fell into line in knee-jerk support of Israel’s blitzkrieg bombing of Lebanon. Although an unfair swipe at sea lions generally, the essential truth of the “trained, barking” part does properly apply to what Gore Vidal called “America’s single political party with two right wings.” Likud fits in well with this credulous crowd of corrupt cretins and thus one can only weep for the doomed Palestinians. They will get nothing back from Israel and its captive patron America that they do not suffer, fight, and die to earn; since neither Israel or America respect anything but armed violence — i.e., “a show of force by one side to clarify things,” as Deputy Dubya Bush calls unilateral, armed aggression.
While the rest of the world moves on and past the ever-more-isolated America and Israel, the latter will inexorably drag the former down with it. Practitioners and sponsors of anachronistic apartheid have no future, as both right-wing governments of Israel and America fail to realize and acknowledge.
Helena
BBC is reporting Gemayel has been shot and killed in Lebanon.
Oh No!
It is not politicians, the American people know the nature of the conflict, if anything, political correctness and politician isolation are restraining the people at this time. Just check out yesterday’s incident on an airplane:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_re_us/passengers_removed
MINNEAPOLIS – Six Muslim imams were removed from a US Airways flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Monday and questioned by police for several hours before being released, a leader of the group said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The six were among passengers who boarded Flight 300, bound for Phoenix, around 6:30 p.m., airport spokesman Pat Hogan said.
A passenger initially raised concerns about the group through a note passed to a flight attendant, according to Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways. She said police were called after the captain and airport security workers asked the men to leave the plane and the men refused.
“They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way,” said Omar Shahin, of Phoenix.
Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam.
NB: We know all we need to know…
“can you quote one US action that has practically curbed Israeli hegemony and dominance”
In 1978 Carter forced Israel out of Lebanon.
“can you quote one US action that has practically curbed Israeli hegemony and dominance”
uh, Suez crisis ring a bell?
And if that action by Carter in 1978 was not grand enough to cut down the hegemony of Israel, there is still no reason to accept the equation America = Israel. The point is that the hegemony of the smaller partner must be cut down, or else America loses its sovereignty as a republic operated for the people inside its own borders. From the beginning of the American Republic this was George Washington’s fear about “passionate attachments” to foreign states. Given GW’s strong principled stance in favor of an American republic that is open to the equality of its own citizens, regardless of creed, and the freedom for all citizens to practice their own religions, Washington’s position on foreign relations should be greatly appreciated by all supporters of Israel today. Surely every American supporter of Israel realizes this, and needs to accept the new requirement of a Smaller Israel on friendly terms with all its neighbors, including the Palestinians in an independent, viable, territorially contiguous state. I think Jimmy Carter in his most recent book, about Palestine and Israel’s apartheid policies, is simply advancing the original ideas of George Washington. All American politicians should recognize the wisdom in these ideas traceable from the first US president through Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush again did not succeed in establishing this new requirement of a Smaller Israel guaranteed its own sovereignty on the basis of formal peace treaties and well-defined borders with all its neighbors. Every politician in America today must surely recognize this new requirement.
Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane,
What say more than this is an “ADVERTISEMENT”
Not just this incident, last month a Jew removed from the plane also while he doing his prayer in the plane after the passengers concerned…
Mr. Vadim: The line reads “after the 1956 war”; the Suez crisis was the 1956 war!
edq: I asked you to please, kindly spare us the theatrics. In the1978 “Operation Litani” , Israeli generals did not come with the intent that they did later in 1982. That is why they did not even go into Tyre, which would not have made any strategic military sense, had they come with the intention to stay. They entered Lebanon on March 14, and blitz-krieged to the Litani, using the provocation of the Dalal Mughrabi raid of March 11, and the ensuing terrible “Coastal Road Massacre” as the casus belli. The whole invasion lasted all of 7 days, basically with the intent of pushing the PLO behind the Litani river, and establishing their murderous allies, the South Lebanon Army (SLA), as near-sovereigns in the area. With Carter’s help (Yes, here Carter does come to the rescue) they forced the pre-cooked Resolution 425 (and later 426) through the Security Council, establishing the UNIFIL to buffer Israel’s Northern borders (in addition to Saad Haddad and his SLA, who immediately began harrassing the UNIFIL). The UN’s reactions were so rapid that they were considered unprecedented, obviously being rammed through by the US. The UNIFIL force actually arrived and set up their headquartes in Naqoura on March 23 (Yes, 9 days after the Israelis first crossed the border !). It is estimated that 1200 – 2000 civilians were killed. Many atrocities, including stranglings and executions of Palestinians and Lebanese, took place; some of these were recorded by international observers, and despite Israel’s initial standard denials, several court martials followed. By April, the SLA were already on their rampage, and had killed many Palestinians and 8 UN soldiers; this continued until the invasion of 1982. After they got what they wanted from the UN, as has been the case in the past 50 years, the US blocked the implementation of the Israeli obligations under 425 and 426. The Security Council finally confirmed such compliance a mere 22 years later, on June 16, 2000.
So yes, this is the way Carter stopped the Israelis in 1978 and thereafter!
This period has been discussed vey well in Fisk’s books, and actually Helena’s too. Also, read Israel’s own foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace”.
Sd: I am not accepting that equation; I am in no position to accept or reject it. I am saying that this is the way the US has acted since 1956. How they should act to be true to the lofty ideals of the forefathers of the Republic is a whole other story.
I’m amazed that anyone could read this interview and still think that there’s any hope of Democrats ever standing up to Israel on even the most insignificant of issues. Didn’t you all notice that “Arik” was kidding Ayalon about his overly intimate “relationship” with Rice, yet Ayalon finds himself torn between her and Clinton:
(Kaspit) “If in the next presidential elections Condoleezza should run against Hillary Clinton, who gets your vote?”
(Ayalon) “That is a good question. It is a real problem for me.”
And that’s someone who’s just been gushing in the most revolting and tasteless manner possible about how much he just LUVS them Bushes!
Israelis know that there isn’t a single American politician in either party brave enough to stand up to AIPAC.
“Can you quote one US action that has practically curbed Israeli hegemony and dominance?”
In 1992 Secretary of State James Baker said the Republican Administration would support the loan guarantees for resettling Soviet refugees only if Israel freezes all Jewish settlement activities in the Occupied Territories.
In 1993 President Clinton notified Congress that the $2 billion in loan guarantees for FY 1994 would be reduced by his Democrat Administration by $437 million, the amount the U.S. government calculated that Israel had spent on Jewish settlements in 1993.
want more?
Yeah, well Truesdell, why do you think that Clinton got into that bad cigar trouble right after doing that? Who do you think was tapping the phone?
Yeah, well Truesdell, why do you think that Clinton got into that bad cigar trouble right after doing that?
Probably because the man can’t keep his pecker in his pants, Brenda.
Trying to blame that on Israel or “The Lobby” just shows how whacky you are.
Did it ever occur to you that most congressional support for Israel is somehow related to the fact that most Americans support Israel rather than because a cabal of “Israel-firsters” has either bought off or threatened congressmen? If you take the time to consider that perfectly rational people can hold views that counter those of Brenda, you won’t have to rely on these crazy conspiracy theories to explain away things you don’t like.
David,
If I underdtand your last post, you seem to be suggesting that Carter was in cahoots with the Israelis.
I can believe that Carter could promote an uneven settlement that would favor the Israelis. At the same time, he did threaten the Israelis if they did not leave Lebanon so he did not agree with all aspects of the Israeli plan. Do you think the invasion would have proceeded differently without U.S. intervention?
At any rate, I agree with your basic point that the record of U.S. politicians on this issue is a sorry one indeed.
“Trying to blame that on Israel or “The Lobby” just shows how whacky you are.”
Actually, JES, you are wrong about this. I have forgotten the exact details but there were some tapped phone calls that did reveal a conspiracy against Clinton.
edq: I have no way of knowing how/if the invasion would have proceeded differently. Israeli generals have said that they never intended to stay, and that is why they avoided the only major population center south of the Litani – Tyre. And of course, at least for decades to come, we will not know what happened behind the closed doors of corridors of power. But the premise of my argument is, since 1956 no US administration has acted in a way that has seriously hampered the Israeli pattern of hegemony and land-grab. Their shows of “protest” are not even funny any more.
JES: Do you have evidence for the fact that “most Americans” believe Israel should be the first and foremost US foreign policy concern, at the expense of many others? Do you really think most Americans think they should make an enemy of 1.2 billion Muslims, and hundreds of millions of others, to achieve this goal? Do not forget that in the UN General Assembly it is not only the Muslim countries that vote to condemn the US/Israeli atrocities and policies, it is everyone, including US allies in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Often the vote is everyone against 2 ! [Sometimes Figi and Polynesia abstain!] So do you sincerely believe most Americans know this and believe that this is good policy? The truth is, sadly, the US populace is not exactly “foreign policy saavy”. Most college students cannot say which country is in which continent. So what actually happens is that the people are strung along by their corrupt leaders. Most Americans, like most people anywhere, support peace and justice. So when all their politicians tell them that is what Israel stands for, are you surprised if they support Israel? Tell them the reality, and the price, and then repeat the same question.
Voltaire says democracy stands on a tripod: free choice (voting), free speech (equal access to media), and free equal education for all. With one of the three in place, the illusion of democracy is just wishful thinking my friend.
And by the way, since some people really love Nazi allegories, does mass support for a racist and chauvanist policy make it right (flashback to Germany, 1938)?
Cheers and Peace to you
edq: I have no way of knowing how/if the invasion would have proceeded differently. Israeli generals have said that they never intended to stay, and that is why they avoided the only major population center south of the Litani – Tyre. And of course, at least for decades to come, we will not know what happened behind the closed doors of corridors of power. But the premise of my argument is, since 1956 no US administration has acted in a way that has seriously hampered the Israeli pattern of hegemony and land-grab. Their shows of “protest” are not even funny any more.
JES: Do you have evidence for the fact that “most Americans” believe Israel should be the first and foremost US foreign policy concern, at the expense of many others? Do you really think most Americans think they should make an enemy of 1.2 billion Muslims, and hundreds of millions of others, to achieve this goal? Do not forget that in the UN General Assembly it is not only the Muslim countries that vote to condemn the US/Israeli atrocities and policies, it is everyone, including US allies in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Often the vote is everyone against 2 ! [Sometimes Figi and Polynesia abstain!] So do you sincerely believe most Americans know this and believe that this is good policy? The truth is, sadly, the US populace is not exactly “foreign policy saavy”. Most college students cannot say which country is in which continent. So what actually happens is that the people are strung along by their corrupt leaders. Most Americans, like most people anywhere, support peace and justice. So when all their politicians tell them that is what Israel stands for, are you surprised if they support Israel? Tell them the reality, and the price, and then repeat the same question.
Voltaire says democracy stands on a tripod: free choice (voting), free speech (equal access to media), and free equal education for all. With one of the three in place, the illusion of democracy is just wishful thinking my friend.
And by the way, since some people really love Nazi allegories, does mass support for a racist and chauvanist policy make it right (flashback to Germany, 1938)?
Cheers and Peace to you
Actually, JES, you are wrong about this. I have forgotten the exact details but there were some tapped phone calls that did reveal a conspiracy against Clinton.
Acutally, edq, when you “remember” exactly what reputable evidence there is of such a conspiracy, perhaps you can share it with us. As it stands, I have seen nothing to indicate a “conspiracy” against Clinton involving his misbehavior, apart, perhaps, from the unsubstantiated rantings of his wife.
Do you have evidence for the fact that “most Americans” believe Israel should be the first and foremost US foreign policy concern, at the expense of many others?
There are a host of polls indicating strong public support by the US electorate for Israel. Arguing that most Americans are not “saavy” (read: “stupid”) – with the implication that somehow you are more saavy or smarter – does not change this.
Apart from this, you seem to be pulling your own “shenannigan” here. There really is no evidence that Israel is the “first and foremost US foreign policy concern”, save perhaps, your own implied assertion that somehow Muslim public opinion toward the US and Israel is somehow paramount. (And, BTW, there is no real evidence that Muslim opinion is somehow more “saavy” than American. In fact, the reliance on denial and elaborate conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israel is evidence to the contrary.)
Further, as you ask, “does mass support for a racist and chauvanist policy make it right”? One need only read the Hamas Charter and listen to the words of Nasrallah and Ahmedinejad to ask the same question about some of those 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.
Finally, I would suggest that you provide some evidence to support your implied causal argument that a different policy toward Israel would somehow substantially change the stance of those 1.2 billion Muslims toward the US. The evidence of US policy up until about 1960 certainly does not support such a causal argument.
BTW, David, your Litani litany leaves out the regular katusha barrages on Kiryat Shmona and the numerous murderous attacks carried out by Palestinian groups in places such as Ma’alot that occurred between 1969 and 1978.
Also, while we’re on the topic of the “Dalal Mugrabi raid”, as you call it, I can think of one US Senator who was probably less inclined to consider chaning his opinion about Palestinian terrorists after Dalal and her cohort murdered his niece in cold blood.
Strong support for Israel among the US general population is a fact. It is not , however reasonabale , rational or political, but rather, in large part irrational, and religously based. See, e.g. David D. Kirkpatrick, NY Times of 11/14, “For Evangelicals, Supporting Isreal Is”God’s Foreign Policy””.
Jes: A few points here:
1- Thank you for implying that I support terrorism and murder of innocent children since I don’t think agree with US/Israeli foreign policy. This technique is honorably called “pulling a Dershie”, in honor of its great proponent, Mr. Dershowitz. You could have called me an anti-Semite too, to seal the deal! If you care to read above, I referred to the Mughrabi raid as ‘the terrible “Coastal Road Massacre”’. I am not sure how else I can express my disgust of such acts, more than calling them a terrible massacre? The point that the Israeli side always obfuscates is that the use of massive retaliation against civilian populations, by a “democratic” state, with casualties often tens of times more than the original atrocity, is not exactly what one expects from people who preach civilty. And especially from the state that was built upon the ashes and memories of millions of innocent victims of hatred and racism. One would expect the innocent cries of the Shoah to ring in our ears when we target innocents to achieve a goal, no matter how worthy we think our goal to be.
2- The point that you are avoiding is “Do the US public know the cost they are paying for their government’s foreign policy?”. The answer is a resounding NO. If you really honestly believe otherwise, I think we reside on parallel planets.
3- Denying the primacy of Israel in US foreign policy is like denying the sun. Do a Lexus search of the archives of the NYTimes for the past 10 years. Pick all US foreign policy-related pieces, and see what percentage of them are about the Mid East. Then, see in what percent the US official in the item did not stress the importance of US support for Israel, or something to that effect.
4- There are many studies on the Pew website that show that the Palestinian plight (and since 2003 Iraq) are the primary political concern of Muslims worldwide. You can check it; a lot of it is free: http://pewglobal.org/ . Actually, if you see in the polls, most Muslims do not support terrorism or Ahmadinejad’s crazy-talk. They are also mostly against Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons. Contrary to your assertion, the majority of Muslims saw the US as a force for freedom and good, until the 1970s when it’s ham-handed support of Israel and propping of puppet regimes (do you need the list?) changed their views. Again on the same site, see data regarding comparison’s of people in the US and other industrial countries regarding foreign news awareness; you could be shocked (it doesn’t make too much sense to compare the US to Bangladesh for awareness/literacy matters, does it?).
5- A point that you quietly side-stepped was that opposition to US/Israeli foreign policy is not limited to Muslims. Please see UN General Assembly votes on the topic. And I beg you not to say that the whole world is anti-Semitic.
6- And finally, to imply that all Muslims or Arabs are against something such as peace or justice for all is inherently racist and chauvanist itself. And orientalist most of all. Notice I did not point any of my criticism to “Jews”, but the governments of Israel and the US (Is it remotely possible that I am one myself?!). If I can believe what I read in the Forward, most Jews worldwide prefer return to 1967 borders and living in peace with their neighbors. No people can be evil en-masse (unless you believe in Biblical theories of certain tribes being fair game for extermination). The point I clearly made is that the experience of 1930s Germany is evidence that whipping up militarist fervor in a nation, even if it reaches near-unanimous approval, clearly does not justify the murderous actions that usually follow. So the assertion that US absolute support of Israel is fine, since most Americans said so, is false.
Cheers and Peace to you.
“…your implied causal argument that a different policy toward Israel would somehow substantially change the stance of those 1.2 billion Muslims toward the US. The evidence of US policy up until about 1960 certainly does not support such a causal argument.”
The issue is not that a change in US policy itself would change the Muslim stance toward America. Thus your reference to the Eisenhower years is inapplicable.
The real issue is whether or not a change in US policy (or a change in French policy pre-1960 …in other words a change in whatever foreign power backs Israel) could demilitarize Israel and put an end to Israel’s expansionist policies. If this happens, then there is little doubt it would affect a positive change in the Muslim stance toward America, France, and the entire “Western” world.
Obviously the expansionist miliarist policies of Israel are not the only reason for a hostile Muslim stance, but you have to be a Fox News propagandist not to see that Israel’s expansionist militarism is a major cause of Muslim hostility toward America and the “west” in general.
Refusing to believe that an end to Israel’s expansionist militarist policies would help alleviate hostilities in the Muslim world implies that Muslims are inherently hostile toward America or the “West.” And this is the mistaken “essentialist” argument of people like Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes.
David,
Your point “1”. I never said, nor did I imply such a thing. Also, much of your account of the Litani operation is what is honorably called “pulling a Fiskie”, in honor of the great propogandist Robert Fisk, who has been shown to misrepresent history and repeat any unfounded anti-Israel libel that he feels will further his case. Prime examples being his charges of Israel’s supposed use of “vacuum implosion bombs” in 1982 (a weapon which didn’t exist), and his charges of Israeli use of “secret uranium bombs” in the recent war (since proved to be completely without basis).
Your point “2”. I am not avoiding it. It is simply a non-issue and an ideological based speculation on your part as to the “costs” that the US is supposedly paying. I give the American public and electorate more credit than you do for being able to see, quite rationally, that while the Palestinian leadership currently claims that their population is starving, they seem to have no problem purchasing and smuggling large amounts of TNT and weapons into Gaza.
Your point “3”. Denying the primacy of Israel in US foreign policy is like denying the sun. Excellent example of demagoguery. “Primacy” in relation to what, David? There may be a lot of articles in the New York Times; probably because the readership finds them of interest. And if those articles include positive statements by individuals in the administration favoring support of Israel, what exactly does that prove? Simply a specious argument on your part.
Your point “4”. Another “Fiskie” on your part. I never stated or implied that most Muslims either did not support the Palestinian cause or that they agreed with Ahmedinejad.
Your point “5”. I side-stepped nothing. When I turned your own statement around about support for racist chauvinist ideologues I was including non-Muslims and, particularly, the UN General Assembly. And please spare me the spurious charges of making charges of anti-Semitism. I haven’t called anyone here an anti-Semite, so let’s stick to the subject.
And finally, as to your point “6”. Again, I never stated, nor did I imply any such thing as you have attributed to me concerning Muslims or Arabs. And I happen to be one of those Jews and Israelis who happens to want to return to the 1967 borders and, most of all, live in peace with my neighbors.
I suggest you learn to read what others write more carefully and ask for clarifications if you’re confused before making such outlandish accusations.
Re: Clinton cut support to Israel equal to that year’s settlement spending; What a great example! One president, one year, back in the ’80’s, out of year in year out gifts of $3B, never mind the deductible charities and lobbies.
Check the record, both before and after Clinton. The funds – in this case $500M +/- – are almost always restored in committe, and it often happens that where funds are taken away on one civil side, military assistance goes up commensurately, or military deliveries in kind, already paid for, are rampede up. Equally often, funds are added over and above those mooted by a POTUS, by various congressional defender’s of the taxpayer’s purse, out of the transient glare of the press, for the usual reasons.
I haven’t called anyone here an anti-Semite, so let’s stick to the subject.
You know it’s better to say it instead mangling with the words each time you commenting her.
Each time keep argue and argue, it’s obvious all your comments you mean it, but you do not saying it.
Enough it’s enough we got sick and tired of your loopy comments …JES
Right Salah. I suggest you get a real big mirror and look into it real carefully before commenting on what I say!